Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
OT...dclarke....I agree. It seems that the gold trade is too obvious and very crowded. IMO, obvious trades hardly ever work out. But, there are always exceptions.
Rox and Dog....Thanks for that info. Given all this, is there still an opportunity for IDCC to participate in SPRD's recent, and apparently on-going, success?
ciciagt..Thanks. eom.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/03/03/spreadtrum-jumps-12-on-q4-beat-q1-view/?mod=yahoobarrons
I have not seen anyone post this news on Spreadtrum. Could olddog or someone remind us of our relationship with Spreadtrum. TIA.
triangle.. your questions re: mms are outside my realm. I can say though, when I was a broker and had a large position to buy or sell, I would call the OTC department and ask them to become a MM in that stock. They would then register with Nasdaq. It usually took a day. But I recall, in one instance it was same day. Hope this helps somewhat.
triangle....Too early to tell but rest assured the fox made up the rules the hens are playing by. And company has nothing to do with MMs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash/
Ok, now that this "theory" is in the public domain, I would like to put forth my "theory" of what is happening in our markets. I will narrow my thoughts to 2007-present. Pre-2007 is another discussion. I'll have to wait for more "credible" sources than myself to bring to light what might have happened then.
As most know in 2007 the SEC, in its infinite wisdom, decided that the uptick rule, which was initiated in 1934 and has kept our markets orderly for almost 80 years, was no longer needed. IMO, this revocation of the rule was secured by those, predominantly GS, who use our markets to continually gorge themselves on the unsuspecting public's money. With all the high-speed tools at their disposal, the one impediment left to curb their ever-growing appetite was the uptick rule. Presto, it was gone.
The elimination of the uptick rule, the short-sale exemptions for MM's etc. have allowed these criminals to, day-in-day out, fleece all those in the market who are not using the same techniques. If this isn't bad enough, there are entities all over the world using these techniques right here, in our markets.
This is, of course, outrageous and anyone who is not outraged is either naive or stupid. But here is the worst part: domestic entities are doing what they do because they are greedy and entitled. The off-shore entities don't care so much about the money (other than to fund their aspirations), they want to destroy us and our world. This is what we, as law-abiding, sincere investors, are up against everyday. So, I repeat what I have said before: All of the explanations for why IDCC or any other company is disconnected from their fundamentals are excuses, not reasons.
I am not going to opine as to whether GS (I use GS in sort of a generic sense, meaning to include all the other lesser manipulators) was, at the time, aware of the consequences that this action would cause. Nevertheless, it has happened. AIMO.
Jim, This is starting to get OT, but there are a few posters like marchma, olddog, loop and others that have steadfastly, through the years provided information that one can absolutely count on. I particularly am grateful because I no longer have to do the heavy lifting involved in garnering the information that they freely and willingly give us. This is truly a unique board in the cyber realm. MO.
Jim....I'll second that. eom.
frobinso.......If "they" are able to take the whole market down after the rules changes, then I guess we have the answer to the question of their effectiveness.
To All, RE: New Trading Rules. Goldman is a dominant player in FINRA. They have vetted out or, more likely, even authored these new rules. Any hope on our part that these rules will "help" us is most likely misplaced. They are not going to do anything that will kill the Golden Goose. IMO
dmailler... I was being a bit sarcastic. If the new rules are going to give an upward bias on share prices, it's not going to happen the first day. For all we know, this pressure today might be a last-gasp effort on the part of the shorts. Too early to tell. IMO
dmiller.....Looks like the "new rules" are helping you re-enter at a lower price.TIC
Truck...Not sure if your post is TIC, but taking it at face value, if YOU are short NFLX, probably has no effect. (My guess is you are not short anything).
Tomorrow begins a new day for the US markets, and new rules that could prove interesting for investors. If the SEC and FINRA follow through with enforcing these new rules, then we could see the markets skyrocket upwards as short sellers desperately battle to purchase their necessary stock back at any price
I'll believe it when I see it! If the past is any indication, they've already figured out ways around these requirements. Also, "if the SEC and Finra follow through" is another big impediment to a return to a level playing field. IMO, it will be a while before we can gauge the effectiveness of these changes. It's not like these manipulators didn't see this coming. MFO.
MY3S.....Maybe we are getting a foreshadowing of tomorrow's action. Down an additional $.84 in after hours??? I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it.
Paheka..or, alternatively: Too bad..didn't have to happen with either an uptick rule or absolute pre-borrowing of shorted shares!
Thanks Jeffree (and to Loop who sent it in a PM)
I recall that we did enter some sort of development deal a few years back with SK. Can someone locate that release and see if it is relevant?TIA.
Amen. eom.
Further evidence that he's a total moron and emblematic of the "what's hot today?" mindset.
FISH...Hard to know for sure, but plausible. It will be interesting to see if the shorts' behavioral pattern changes with these new rules. JMO
Dclarke... To be honest, no I can't. I was not aware of these proposed changes. I can say that many of the "changes" that have been implemented have been designed to "not rock the boat". I.e., if the rules were changed such that all undelivered shares HAD to be delivered by a certain date it would "disrupt" the markets. Shares that were sold short, naked, would go from $.05 to $1000.00 (for example). My point is that the SEC and FINRA are taking baby steps to "restore" the markets and to paper over the biggest financial crime ever perpetrated in free markets. (NSS). MFO.
Gamco... Wow. This is (ostensibly) great news. Thanks, eom.
Carly... I have the same sense of despair. However, there is one hope and that is the Justice Department. If we have degraded to the point that these Feds are compromised, then we really do have problems.
dozer.....To your point, everyone must read this article, if they haven't already.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/matt-taibbis-latest-why-isnt-wall-street-jail
Pretty much sums it all up. IMFO
OT..dmiller.....Very interesting. Maybe we can compare notes at the the Houston 100? If not then, I would propose a Marco Island 200. Very nice here.
OD...somehow I knew you would come through with your usual thoroughness. You are a real and continuing asset to this board. Thank you.
Thanks Magilla...EOM.
olddog...It used to be 45 days for Q's and 90 for K's. I thought that the current requirements are 40 days and 70 days respectively. Would you mind double checking for us? TIA
OT ..Punkin: To elaborate a little. That is the way I have always done it. Used to use margin (balls to the wall!). Now I have 1/3 of my money in cash....very conservative (for me)! Also, I was 18 when I bought my first stock so I'm not exactly ancient.
Best.
It is difficult to say how much of the drop today is the result of the economic atmosphere in Libya and how much is due to missing the target. Would we have declined as much if we just met expectations? Who knows, but, compared to QCOM and other NASDAQ stocks that recovred somewhat today, I would have to say it was all of the decline attributed to missing target.
Fish.....what is noticeably absent from your alternatives of an explanation of today's drop is purely and simply what happens on a daily basis: market and, specifically stock manipulation. Please, no offense intended but, this is what I have mentioned numerous times: The explanation for today's drop is an "excuse", not a reason. Make any sense?
ellis.....I think the only way we will know the answer to that would be when the 10Q for the first quarter is filed.. It is possible that a cash settlement was made at the time of signing (and therefore not yet visible to us). Further, I think it is a sound assumption that both of these licensees are per unit partners and they will be reporting their sales after each quarter ends.
As for how the cash settlement is accounted for, I don't know for sure, however recall that Q1 estimates comprised only existing licensees as of end of 2010.
Hope this helps.
ellis.....Don't believe revs. from new license could be included because the one quarter lag in reporting. Actually, same goes for Acer.
OT...israt. Respectfully decline. Nothing to be gained by anyone. eom
OT..Punkin......First off, I would put my statement more in the category of knowledge than belief. Knowledge gained from 45 years in the market and 20+ as a broker/money manager. IDCC and 2 other companies are my only holdings. They are substantial. I believe that these 3 companies will do what I expect them to within 2 years. (I have held some IDCC for 17 years, the other 2, 5 and 10 years) Then I will be out for good (unless there are some serious changes precluding the continuing manipulation of the markets). The money that I have has substantially been made as an investor. I am willing to put up with this BS for a while longer, but I am not happy about it.
As for you selling calls and buying puts, I'd love to know how that works out for you over time. Unless you are an exception (and I doubt that you are), it is just a lot of tail-chasing. Most people lose on one what they make on the other.
Hope this answers your question.
I am pretty sure most on this board are aware of all this. What amazes me is that some people still believe that the market is an efficient, fair, zero-sum game predicated on supply/demand. Today's market is a travesty of what it once was. It's all about big money having license to, day-in/day-out, fleece the individual investor.
sloane...Could be the first thing we have ever agreed on. I have continually spoken out against unfounded "guesses". But, more importantly, what happens on Ihub has far less of an effect on the stock price than most here think. IMO.
Loop. Love the analogy. Agree 100%. eom.
sloane...If the $9M had not been deferred, Revs. would have been $104M and earnings $.90 (unless I am missing something). Were I hubbers supposed to have figured out that this deferral would occur?